|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:42 pm
I thought we needed a thread to discuss the various stories we find in the Media. Tv and newspapers, mainly. Please be careful not to violate copyright laws or commit plagerism. Simply refer to (X) story, about (Subject) and what you thought about it. Always State your source! Your post should be more about your opinion on a story then the story itself. I'll Start with an example.
In todays Metro section of the Tampa tribune, I read an article about Motercycle insurance. It said that only 4 States do not have laws requiring motercycle owners to have insurance. I am very grateful to be living in one of them, Florida. Unfortunantly, the impression I got from reading the article was that there would soon be an attempt to change that. I will fight it, of course, and I hope my fellow Libertarians do as well. I hope we keep another set of oppressive Mandatory insurance laws from being passed.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:32 pm
I agree, forcing citizens to buy something to insure themselves is a rediculus concept. Of course getting insurance is a good idea since it can really save you in a bunge, but why should the government force it's citizens to make good choices. Do they assume that they can always make better choices then their own constituents?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2005 1:16 pm
I believe most states automotive insurance laws (and I would assume this would extend to motorcycles, but I could be wrong) require you to buy insurance that pays for monetary harm a driver would cause others, not harm you cause to yourself.
This could argueably fall under the just government mandate of protecting property.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:07 am
By now, you have almost Certainly heard about "Harry the Nazi." I heard about it on Tv. Since everyone else seems to be making a big deal out of it, I guess we ought to discuss it. I feel that Prince Harry did nothing wrong. I think that what a person wears or what his/her opinions are on anything are their own business. The Nazis were racist, so this is about racism. I think that racism is a set of opinions that a person holds, and the right to express those opinions is protected under freedom of speech. If this had happened in the U.S., it would be constitutionally legal. (I don't know how this works in Britain.) Whether racism is right or not is not the issue here. The issue is if it should be legal to express or not. ( I personally think racism is Wrong, but if someone else doesn't, I don't think I or anybody else has the right to stop them from expressing that view.) I think freedom of speech is the right to hold and express opinions, even if society doesn't agree with it. What do you guys think?
P.S. (I know, I know. Martin Luther King Day is probably the wrong time to bring this up. But oh well.)
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:38 pm
High_Assassin By now, you have almost Certainly heard about "Harry the Nazi." I heard about it on Tv. Since everyone else seems to be making a big deal out of it, I guess we ought to discuss it. I feel that Prince Harry did nothing wrong. I think that what a person wears or what his/her opinions are on anything are their own business. The Nazis were racist, so this is about racism. I think that racism is a set of opinions that a person holds, and the right to express those opinions is protected under freedom of speech. If this had happened in the U.S., it would be constitutionally legal. (I don't know how this works in Britain.) Whether racism is right or not is not the issue here. The issue is if it should be legal to express or not. ( I personally think racism is Wrong, but if someone else doesn't, I don't think I or anybody else has the right to stop them from expressing that view.) I think freedom of speech is the right to hold and express opinions, even if society doesn't agree with it. What do you guys think? P.S. (I know, I know. Martin Luther King Day is probably the wrong time to bring this up. But oh well.) Well, I think he is entitled to his opinion, but because he is part of England's monarchy, he is also responable to answer to the media. I don't think legal action should be brought against him, but I do support the media's right to tear him apart. That falls under Freedom of Press.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 6:40 pm
This comes from none other than the Libertarian Parties home Page. biggrin President Busch basicly proposed that we get invoved in MORE wars just like Iraq in his Inauguration speech. Didn't Iraq teach him anything about "Spreading Democracy thoughout the World?!" We are barely managing Iraq, and now he wants to do it again? scream What is WRORNG with him?!
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:05 pm
High_Assassin This comes from none other than the Libertarian Parties home Page. biggrin President Busch basicly proposed that we get invoved in MORE wars just like Iraq in his Inauguration speech. Didn't Iraq teach him anything about "Spreading Democracy thoughout the World?!" We are barely managing Iraq, and now he wants to do it again? scream What is WRORNG with him?! Hmmm... maybe he learned some magic trick to pull extra soldiers and equipment out of his a**. I don't see how he can do it unless he forces a draft. If he does that, I'm screwed. Not only would I be in a war, but I would be in a war without a weapon simply because the government can't afford to provide suitable protected for out troops.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:51 am
VashZero5 High_Assassin This comes from none other than the Libertarian Parties home Page. biggrin President Busch basicly proposed that we get invoved in MORE wars just like Iraq in his Inauguration speech. Didn't Iraq teach him anything about "Spreading Democracy thoughout the World?!" We are barely managing Iraq, and now he wants to do it again? scream What is WRORNG with him?! Hmmm... maybe he learned some magic trick to pull extra soldiers and equipment out of his a**. I don't see how he can do it unless he forces a draft. If he does that, I'm screwed. Not only would I be in a war, but I would be in a war without a weapon simply because the government can't afford to provide suitable protected for out troops. Actually, after I made that post, I found a news story that said the Army is working on a robotic soldier. In fact, they already have one. Of course, the trigger is controlled by a slodier half a mile away. This robot was already being used to defuse roadside bombs in Iraq. The soldiers there asked for a model that could shoot insurgents for them too. The story covered the test run of a prototype. So mabe Bush plans to use an Army of factory-manufactured robots instead of people. If so, he is certainly planning for the future. Now if only he could plan for the present...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:44 pm
High_Assassin By now, you have almost Certainly heard about "Harry the Nazi." I heard about it on Tv. Since everyone else seems to be making a big deal out of it, I guess we ought to discuss it. I feel that Prince Harry did nothing wrong. I think that what a person wears or what his/her opinions are on anything are their own business. The Nazis were racist, so this is about racism. I think that racism is a set of opinions that a person holds, and the right to express those opinions is protected under freedom of speech. If this had happened in the U.S., it would be constitutionally legal. (I don't know how this works in Britain.) Whether racism is right or not is not the issue here. The issue is if it should be legal to express or not. ( I personally think racism is Wrong, but if someone else doesn't, I don't think I or anybody else has the right to stop them from expressing that view.) I think freedom of speech is the right to hold and express opinions, even if society doesn't agree with it. What do you guys think? P.S. (I know, I know. Martin Luther King Day is probably the wrong time to bring this up. But oh well.) if you look, the swastika is parralel to the band...it's at an angle on uniforms. that was a very cheap halloween costume. not that it matters what he wears, but he's not a racist, he just has a bad sence of humor. been there, done that. I almost got suspended for calling a jewish kid a 'kite'
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:42 pm
High_Assassin This comes from none other than the Libertarian Parties home Page. biggrin President Busch basicly proposed that we get invoved in MORE wars just like Iraq in his Inauguration speech. Didn't Iraq teach him anything about "Spreading Democracy thoughout the World?!" We are barely managing Iraq, and now he wants to do it again? scream What is WRORNG with him?! bush likes his wars... he likes spending our money on pointless wars that piss off the rest of the world just because he can... and now that hes in a lame duck presidency there will be more wars... everyone knew going into the last election that if bush was elected he would have to keep up his record of 2 wars per term... it was a given... i dont like it and i voted against him simply because of that... but then again... i live in alabama... one vote against him was immediately squashed by the masses
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 4:47 pm
Well, it seems we may have ONE thing to thank President Bush for. He is currently advocating a rehash of OUR Social Security plan. Naturally, he corrupted it somewhat, as I read on the LP's website., but even so, we may get something done. (Even if the Fuhuer of Freedom and the Democracy Nazis take all the credit for it ) domokun
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 12:40 pm
Well, it has come up yet again. The fate of Terri Schivo. This is an issue on which there probably isn't a united Libertarian position, so I want ask some of my fellow Libertarians what you think. Should she be kept alive, or allowed to die. My opinion is that if her parents think that she can improve with therapy, then she should be given that therapy. If, after a set peroid of time, like 4-5 years, she fails to show improvement, she should be allowed to die. Thats my position. Try the therapy for a few years, and if it doesn't work, let her die. Again, what do you guys think?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:33 am
i knew nothing about this until you mentioned it...but i read a small article and i think it should ultimately be up to the family to decide what should happen to her. although this is a different case because they don't all agree. if it were me i would want to explore more possibilities and let her stay alive....
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 9:24 am
The Legislature is passing another law designed to keep Terri Schiavo alive. It shows that democracy still works in this country, at least somewhat. I know the main reason that they are doing this is because they have recieved a flood of letters from voters all over the country asking them to try to save Terri's life. And they listened! This is clearly democracy in action. I have no comment on whether voters from California should be able to decide the fate of a woman in Florida, but it clearly means that we, the people, can still tell our government what to do. And THATS the way democracy is SUPPOSED to work. Terri's husband was on the right track when he said that Congress was "Pandering to the religious right." In fact, Congress is merly doing what the people of this nation have told it to do. In this day and age of ever expanding goverment control, it's nice to see this kind of thing taking place. biggrin
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:19 pm
My problem with it is that it just shows the dictoral aspects of the majority squashing minority rights. That and complete ignorance of the law.
A. Schivo has no direct effect on them, and her life or death does not cause any substantial direct or indirect harm. It is also not infringing upon any of their rights. Thus, they have no right to interfere with the rights of her and her husband.
B. By the law, since no living will exists, her husband has the right to decide her fate.
C. The fact that her parents want to keep her alive is a matter between them and her husband, not between the Congress of the United States and their constituants.
This combined with Congress' attack on baseball make me really wonder if they're trying out Statism to see if they like it or not.
As for Iraq, it's a missaplied us of force. Politics and fighting a war should not combine. Once we get into a war, politics needs to stay out of it. That and the media. That's what screwed us in Vietnam and that's what is screwing us now. What we really need to do is woop the s**t out of the people causing the problem. Not just go in there and p***y-foot around. Treat the entire middle-east like the warzone it is and just lay down wanton destruction on terrorist institutions. Especially considering we can have GPS guided carpet bombing. We shouldn't be waiting for insurgents to come to us. We should be going door to door kicking their a** at every chance. Pretty much, once we go to war these days we have too many restrictions that we can't get things done.
It's still sad, considering all the techonology and ability that the Western powers have, that they simply refuse to flex their muscle and prove that they aren't going to put up with this sort of s**t from other countries. You either play nice, or you get your a** wooped.
Then again, we wouldn't be in this mess right now if it wasn't for our genius allies of Britian and France screwing over the middle east after WWII.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|